nope...

no limit.

baseball is unique in its lack of a game clock.
I think it'd be nice if things went quicker, but don't wish to do so at the expense of the game.

Sportswriter complaining about time stuck in a baseball stadium? I think someone said it best here last week...

Dog bites dog food.

I don't mind the current situation (though I think last night was a little excessive), but I can see a rationale for limiting them. We limit trips to the mound for coaches, why not for catchers? A similar penalty would be dumb, but I'd have no problem with a "1 visit per batter" or "2 visits for every three batters" rule or something. Tell a catcher he can make the excess visit, but it costs them a ball, just like a pitcher going to his mouth while on the mound.

29 seconds between each pitch in order for the pitcher to properly tighten his lips into a small letter "o" and cross his eyes like a clown. Speed that circus act up.

So how much time might pitcher-catcher mound visits add to the typical game? Two minutes?

I'd be shocked if the average game is lengthened by more than 2-3 minutes, max, by pitcher-catcher mound conferences. They typically last less than 15 seconds, and then add 10 seconds to each one for the catcher to walk back and forth, and then each team maybe averages a couple of these per game...

I'm sure many games have more but there are a number of games that may have none.

I'd rather see them crack down on batters stepping out of the box... there are some at-bats that are probably extended by more than a minute each by unnecessary habitual stepping out.

29 seconds between each pitch in order for the pitcher to properly tighten his lips into a small letter "o" and cross his eyes like a clown.

OK, THIS made me laugh at my desk.

I think Joe Mauer might gain 10 pounds in a season if they limited battery visits.

Yes.

Let the pitcher wear an earbud so the coach can talk to him from the dugout.

I am pro mound visits for three reasons I can think of:

1. Many mound visits are to establish/confirm signal changes with a runner on second. If mound visits reduce the likelihood of cheating AND reduce passed balls from cross-ups, I consider this good.

2. Many mound visits are done to allow a pitcher in the bullpen extra time to warm up. If mound visits increase the likelihood of a pitcher being able to perform at his highest ability and/or reduce the likelihood of injury, I consider this good.

3. It is also a well known and well documented fact that mound visits are the most appropriate time for ballplayers to discuss wedding gifts for other ballplayers. If mound visits decrease the amount of time spent discussing wedding gifts during pre-game stretching exercises, then again they reduce the likelihood of injury, and I consider that good.

Many mound visits are to establish/confirm signal changes with a runner on second. If mound visits reduce the likelihood of cheating AND reduce passed balls from cross-ups, I consider this good.

So limit mound visits to between batters. No mound visits by catchers mid-at bat.

Many mound visits are done to allow a pitcher in the bullpen extra time to warm up. If mound visits increase the likelihood of a pitcher being able to perform at his highest ability and/or reduce the likelihood of injury, I consider this good.

Why keep up the ruse? Just let a manager bring in a pitcher who hasn't warmed up and give him as much time as he needs? If the goal is making sure he's ready, why not delay the game five minutes? Ten minutes? Fifteen minutes? Same for pinch hitters. Let them go out and take a little BP before their at bats.

I'd be shocked if the average game is lengthened by more than 2-3 minutes, max, by pitcher-catcher mound conferences.

I'd be shocked if last night's game wasn't delayed upwards of 10 minutes simply due to mound visits by both catchers (but mostly Varitek :)).

2. Many mound visits are done to allow a pitcher in the bullpen extra time to warm up.

This is the only type of mound visit that bugs me. Failure to have your team prepared is the managers fault. I would not be opposed to a rule stating that a switch couldn't be made after a certain point pre-determined by the HP ump, and then that pitcher must finish the appearance against said batter, and failure to do so for any reason (including injury) results in a BB to the batter.

I wouldn't be opposed to a time limit on mound visits, and it starts once the C/Mgr/IF/PC asks for time. If no signal for reliever within 20 seconds, you've missed your shot.

Purposeful stall tactics are annoying.

Personally, I don't think they should allow the catcher to goto the mound unless a coach or
manager is going to the mound.

It slows the tempo of the game.

discuss wedding gifts

and to identify the hot mamas in the crowd with which they'd like to dance the four legged boogie.

So limit mound visits to between batters. No mound visits by catchers mid-at bat.

Then you've got the catcher going to the mound every single time somebody gets on first base. "Just in case that dude steals second, here's our plan..." That seems like more mound visits than the other way.

Why keep up the ruse? Just let a manager bring in a pitcher who hasn't warmed up and give him as much time as he needs? If the goal is making sure he's ready, why not delay the game five minutes? Ten minutes? Fifteen minutes? Same for pinch hitters. Let them go out and take a little BP before their at bats.

Just as I am pro mound visits, I am anti hyperbolic silliness used to make me sound absurd for being okay with the status quo.*


*I am pro most other hyperbolic sillinesses.

If mound visits reduce the likelihood of cheating

Wtf are you talking about?

Wtf are you talking about?

I am assuming that the mound visits with a man on second address some complex arrangement of signals to keep the man on second from picking up what pitch is coming. If the mound visits do, in fact, limit this, then they are reducing cheating (I consider sign-stealing cheating, your mileage may vary).

On edit: I don't get the implicit anger in the way this question was posed, by the way. WTF expresses some, at best, dulled outrage to me, where the question could easily have been phrased in the more benign, "Could you explain what you mean by this?" If it was meant to read another way, I apologize for totally missing it.

I consider sign-stealing cheating

It seems like you're being serious.

Would you have players and coaches avert their eyes when signs are being given? Why not just have the players yell their strategies to each other, and trust the other team to pretend they didn't hear.

Get rid of time out all together!! If the pitcher and catcher want to chat on the mound they are going to have to keep an eye on that runner on third!

Get rid of time out all together!!

Actually, I kind of agree with this. Players treat time-out like a birthright these days. Half the time they ask for it before the play is even over. Guys slide into and past second, their pinky toe barely in contact with the base, the shortstop hovering over them with the ball, and they're asking for time -- and they get it. #### you, show me you can stand up without losing the base, and maybe I'll grant you time when the ball is returned to the pitcher.

I am serious. The silent conveyance of information among teammates is essential to the delicate balance of the game. If the batter always knows what's coming, if the defense always knows when the steal or hit & run are on, it completely changes the complexion of the game. Sign stealing, to me, is a threat to the foundation of baseball. Whatever means are taken to prevent efficiency in sign stealing, these are, to me, reasonable.

Of course, the best way to thwart it might be to send the catcher out to the mound after every pitch, but I prefer a solution that is less time-consuming. I don't like mound visits THAT much.

Guys slide into and past second, their pinky toe barely in contact with the base, the shortstop hovering over them with the ball, and they're asking for time -- and they get it.

That's an incredibly ridiculous exaggeration.

Sign stealing (without the use of extra personnel or technology) has absolutely zero to do with cheating.

I don't get why everyone always wants to speed up the game. Is watching baseball so horrible? I agree with #5 - if we're really looking to cut down time of game, forcing batters to stay in the box would be much more productive (I guess MLB is all ready planning to do that next year to some extent, right? I remember reading that a few weeks ago).

That said, watching Steve Trachsel pitch IS unbearable.

Hasn't abstinence been discredited already?

I guess MLB is all ready planning to do that next year to some extent, right? I remember reading that a few weeks ago

If they do this it will be the third time in recent memory (the last 4 years?) that they've claimed that they will crack down on this. I'll believe it when I see it.

i'm with #22.
sign stealing is fine if you're too stupid to have a set of signs that can't be picked off by base runners. Changing the signs should be allowed. Using cameras or binoculars should be illegal.

I don't get the complaints. The mound visits add, at the max, a couple minutes to the total length of the game, which is usually at around 3 hours, so about 1%. I'm relatively young but I'll sound like an old geezer here: people today are too damn impatient, everything has to be instantaneous. You want a hot meal microwaved in 5 seconds and you want a baseball game condensed down to an hour. It's stupid.

One of the reasons I personally love baseball is the lack of rigid timing. All of the appeals to shorten the game are hogwash to me; they would tarnish what is a great game and needs very little tweaking. If it ain't broke, why fix it, y'know?

Superfluous or not, part of the appeal of baseball (again, for me) are the idiosyncrasies, like Nomar's superstitious antics in the batter's box and the bevy of pitchers who tug at their cap, brush their sleeve, wipe their nose, and adjust their underpants before coming set.

Eventually, viewers will become so impatient that they'll ban pitchers throwing over to first base, and they'll ban drawn-out windups, and then slow base runners...

Its not so much the time, its the pace and tempo of the game.

What takes up more time, IMO, are the incessant step-outs by hitters. Some guys step out and take two-three swings every frickkin' pitch.

Rule 6.02(d) should be implemented in the majors. Keep 'em in the box.

-- MWE

Also, Matsuzaka should be sent back to Japan. The land of the tea ceremony and Noh Japanese theater is the only suitable place for gastropod-paced hurlers like him. Trachsel too, if he were still around.

You want a hot meal microwaved in 5 seconds

But what if I want it faster?

baseball is unique in its lack of a game clock.
I think it'd be nice if things went quicker, but don't wish to do so at the expense of all the dead time waiting to return to the game.

I don't get why everyone always wants to speed up the game. Is waiting around while players scratch their ass and chatter when you want to be watching baseball so horrible?

Major League Baseball has long managed the sport as if it's still the 18th century and helped pave the way for the emergence of the NFL as americas favorite sport. This game that was charming because it lacked a game clock was much more charming when games averaged two hours in length, not three.

Eventually, viewers will become so impatient that they'll ban pitchers throwing over to first base, and they'll ban drawn-out windups, and then slow base runners...

Don't be silly, windups and slow ballplayers aren't a problem. But forcing pitchers to throw to the plate once between each throw to first would speed the game greatly and improve it's fan appeal. Count me in for that, it makes more sense than the totally illogical balk rule.

This game that was charming because it lacked a game clock was much more charming when games averaged two hours in length, not three.

Is there really a difference? As far as I can tell, football games take about three hours as well. I tried looking at some box scores but unlike baseball, it looks like football box scores don't record the time of game.

Don't be silly, windups and slow ballplayers aren't a problem.

I'm not saying they are; I'm saying that's where the slippery slope leads.

forcing pitchers to throw to the plate once between each throw to first would...

...create a ridiculous advantage for base runners and a huge disadvantage for pitchers.

Yes, MLB should reduce some of the down time of the game. No one wants the actual game shortened. When people talk about shortening game time, they mean time when nothing's happening: batters stepping out, pitcher/catcher meetings, commercials. The ideal game-shortening measures would become unnoticed after a half-season. (I. E., if a standard, pre-1994 strike zone was enforced, teams and fans would complain for a while, but if it was consistent, the complaints would fade quickly.)

For the economists out there: is it necessary to make the commericals longer during the playoffs? Couldn't MLB tell the advertisers, "Look. This is the biggest stage for baseball in the world. You paid us [whatever] for a 30-second regular-season spot. Our first offer is [whatever x 1.5]." The numbers would probably make more sense for someone with a financial background, but still, couldn't MLB get quite a bit more money than the regular season with the same commercial time during the playoffs?

Is there really a difference? As far as I can tell, football games take about three hours as well.

Correct. And halftime of a football game is 15 minutes of intentional game stoppage; the same amount of time, if not longer, than all of the mound visits in a baseball game put together.

Major League Baseball has long managed the sport as if it's still the 18th century and helped pave the way for the emergence of the NFL as americas favorite sport. This game that was charming because it lacked a game clock was much more charming when games averaged two hours in length, not three.

NFL games run three hours long, which includes built-in 45-second sets of ass scratching after every play, and they inject a 12-minute gap right in the middle during which there is no play whatsoever.

But whatever. If you want baseball to be more like football, please feel free to go watch footaball. Baseball has plenty of charm if you care to look for it, and if you don't that's fine, too. About the only reason anybody should care whether it's America's favorite sport or the National Pastime or what have you is that it is a fantastic shared social experience. It's popularity enhances the stadium experience, the bar experience, the message board experience, the office water cooler experience, and so on. It's competition with other sports is pretty artificial (although admittedly a very wide gap between football and baseball could have an adverse effect on baseball's post-season schedule, which currently relies on heavy weekend loads).


Sign stealing (without the use of extra personnel or technology) has absolutely zero to do with cheating.

Baseball is a sport whose basic fundamentals include bits of acceptable deception and trickery, so the distinction between sign stealing and, say, a pump fake or the hidden ball trick isn't the most cut and dried, but I maintain that sign stealing provides a competitive advantage that pushes beyond the envelope of the game's spirit of sportsmanship. Obviously, there is an explicit understanding that the other team is likely to attempt to steal signs (otherwise there wouldn't be such a concerted effort to thwart it), but there is also an explicit disapproval and resentment of the act, to the extent that someone caught stealing signs can expect retaliation in one form or another.

I would much rather see the line drawn at the act itself rather than at its means of execution, because under those circumstances what might constitute "extra technology" is pretty gray, and is becoming more so all the time.

For the economists out there: is it necessary to make the commericals longer during the playoffs? Couldn't MLB tell the advertisers, "Look. This is the biggest stage for baseball in the world. You paid us [whatever] for a 30-second regular-season spot. Our first offer is [whatever x 1.5]." The numbers would probably make more sense for someone with a financial background, but still, couldn't MLB get quite a bit more money than the regular season with the same commercial time during the playoffs?

I think baseball does something similar to that.

THEN they increase the number of commercials by 50%... so they'd make 175% of a regular season game in our completely theoretical example.

I don't get why several people think the batter stepping out is slowing the game down. They step out due to the pitcher. Some pitchers (maybe all, but some more than others) hold the ball, shake off signs, or are in pitching position before the windup, for quite a while. Sometimes the intent is to slow the game down or get the hitter to step out. I am guessing that a hitter loses concentration/patience at some point, or feels that the pitchers delay is messing with his timing, so he calls time. I remember hearing Pedro talk about purposely doing this as a strategy. If pitchers can employ this strategy, it is only fair that the batter can do the same (by calling time at the last second..one thing Lugo is real good at) or call time in order to combat the pitcher's strategy.

I also think the 'delays' of baseball are magnified during tense moments and may seem to take longer than they actually do. But, to me, that is part of the excitement. I agree that the mound visits can get annoying, but they seem to happen more often in the playoffs, which is understandable.

You want a hot meal microwaved in 5 seconds

But what if I want it faster?

What? Nobody's comin' up with 4 seconds.....who cooks a meal in 4 seconds? You won't even get your heart going!

I can live with the status quo, but if you must tinker make it no limit on mound visits by the catcher, but he must run both ways or the umpire shall call a ball. No replay review on the umpire's judgment as to whether the catcher achieved sufficient speed to constitute "running".

blah.

I don't get why several people think the batter stepping out is slowing the game down. They step out due to the pitcher.

Horsehockey. I watch guys who step out after every pitch, adjust their batting gloves and take two-three swings before settling back in. That's regardless of whether the pitcher is ready or not.

-- MWE

Allowing the pitcher to set the tempo is never in the hitter's best interest. Regardless of whether or not it is good for the game, don't you have to acknowledge that stepping out serves the hitter's interest? That is to say, I think there is a purpose to it - they aren't just mugging for the cameras. If you want to push things faster, the fair thing is to push both sides, not just the hitters or just the pitchers.

Football and baseball are apples and oranges. How hard is it to get fired up about the NFL when your team gets eight home games a year? Given that, OF COURSE the atmosphere is going to be electric. I think it's at least as impressive to see baseball teams draw 30,000+ daily for 81 games. They say Chicago is a Bears town, and maybe that's true, but I see greater passion for baseball. It just isn't the kind of passion that you're going to get if you condense things down to eight Sundays a year.

Yes, baseball games can drag at time. But to me three hours is better than two when you're watching something you love. I'm not one to complain about more time at the ballpark or more hours of baseball on TV.